TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ills of Entry during the year 1999 and 2000. Two consignments were also imported from New Delhi. The Revenue conducted certain investigations and on 4-11-1999, they found a Packing Slip No. 13 dated 14-8-1999 in respect of one consignment which was imported and already cleared. It was revealed that the packing slip 13 which was found out contained the actual configurations of the items imported. There was also a remark in that particular slip that slip is only for internal use and not for Customs purposes. This created a reasonable belief that the appellants had misdeclared the configuration of the goods. Therefore, detailed investigations were conducted and proceedings were initiated against the appellants by way of issue of Show Cause Not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Company was also a Director in the Singapore Company. Therefore, it was held that the supplier of the equipment from Singapore and the appellant company are related persons. Another point is the packing slip recovered from the premises of the appellant in respect of one consignment revealed that the appellants had not made a correct declaration of the configuration of the item imported. On account of the above reasons, the Transaction Value which has been declared by the appellants was not accepted by the Revenue. The Adjudicating Authority has stated that the Transaction Value cannot be accepted on account of the mis-declaration and further, he has decided, by sequentially applying the Valuation Rules from 5 to 8, he decided that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arriving at it, he has observed that the appellant did not disclose the details of the configuration imported by them in respect of all the consignments cleared by them from Bangalore. Therefore, he has adopted US$ 51047 and arrived at the differential duty liability. Adopting the above method, the Commissioner demanded differential duty of Rs. 6,49,97,904/- in respect of the goods imported through Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore, in terms of first proviso to Sec of the Customs Act. Further, he demanded differential duty of Rs.2,90,22,578/- in respect of the goods imported from New Delhi. He held that the impugned goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. He imposed a penalty equal to the duty demanded on the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nternal use only and not to be used for Customs." This packing slip contains the following configuration. Qty. Description Size(cms.) Remarks 3 3Com TC Hiper Hub System 3 ctns.1 x Managed dual 130A chassis with Hiper NMC 15 x Hiper DSP El card set1 x Hiper ARC set 63x63x42 1 to 3 1 3Com TC Hiper Hub System 1 ctns.n 1 x Managed dual 130A chassis with Hiper NMC 8 x Hiper DSP El card set 4 x A/D quad modem set (new) 4 x Hiper ARC set 63x63x42 4 2 3Com TC Hiper Hub Chassis 2 ctns. Consists of: 1 x Managed dual 130A chassis with Hiper NMC 63x63x42 5 & 6 This packing slip contains configuration in respect of two systems. Actually, f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also seen that there is no cooperation from the appellants. But, it is revealed in the course of the personal hearing that all the items which have been imported have been supplied to M/s. Satyam Computers, which is based in India only. No efforts have been made by the investigating officers to find out either from M/s. Satyam Computers or from the suppliers in Singapore or USA to ascertain the exact configuration. Thus, the investigating officers have not done a thorough job. The investigation itself is incomplete. Prima facie, there is evidence that there is mis-declaration. But, without finding out what exactly the items, which have been really imported, one cannot take the value relating to a particular configuration and apply it unifor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant New Delhi. They have also furnished certain invoices of the USA Company in respect of goods supplied to their Singapore Company. All these prices are much less than the price adopted by the Commissioner. 5.4 In view of the above observations, we do not find that there is any justification for the Commissioner to adopt the value relating to the configuration in the recovered packing slip in respect of all the consignments. We hold that the value decided by the Commissioner in respect of the two configurations mentioned in the Packing slip should be adopted only for the consignment covered by Bill of Entry 125451 dated 24-8-1999. In respect of all the other consignments, including the consignment at New Delhi, there is no justific....